Friday, 29 January 2010

In my "Law of Unintended Consequences" threads I've detailled just a few of the stupidly vague catch-all laws that Labour have passed while in office, which do far more than their original intention. I suppose the lawmakers do it "just in case" to prevent loopholes, but all that happens is that innocent people or people the law wasn't intended to cover get swept up by the "catch-all" nature of wide open legislation and prosecuted when there wasn't an original intention to prosecute.

For instance with knife crime: yes, it should be a crime to go out with the intention to use a knife as an offencive weapon. It should NOT be an offence to carry knives home from Argos or Ikea (which it technically is).

I keep banging on about the violent pornography laws, but it shouldn't be a criminal offence to own an image of an act that is entirely legal.

The majority of times Labour enact laws that are too broad in their scope and show no imaginatiuon: concentrating on being too vague and catch-all, whithout being clear and stating the intent of the law and defining the act it is wishing to proscribe.

I still would like a big repeal bill in the next Parliament. The report by The Better Government Initiative reinforces the need for such a bill to be enacted.

I can't understand why you would ever go out of the house in pyjamas, let along traipse to an out-of-town supermarket and shop there in them.

Wednesday, 27 January 2010

Not long ago I postulated that the Man Made Global Warming Scam, the World Health Organisation's ramping up of the Swine Flu Epidemic and the push for GM crops were all examples of big corporations manipulating political agendas for their own ends. Certianly I posulated that the Public Bodies that require the services of Global Corporations seem to have too cosy a relationship.

EU Referendum is getting a rep for collating data on and exposing these cosy relationships, as tesified by the dogged investigation of R K Pachauri and the incestuous Climate Business created around him.

I'm sure there will be others. GM Crops were pushed as the next big thing for agriculture, with lots of benefits and no side effects. But is that really true. Our own common sense told us that adding an insecticidal gene into an edible plant may not be a good idea, both from the perspective of the beneficial insects that visit those crops (like bees), and the eventual consumers (us). Well, it seems that despite the protests that GM crops are safe to consume, they aren't. I just wonder what the real effect is on pollinating insects?

I'm sure there will be more cosy relationships exposed between members of global public organisations and big corporations. The thing is, how do we sanction these unelected global beaurocrats if they cross the line?

As I said in my earlier post about inflation, there is now a small window of opportunity before everything catches up with Labour's economic policies and we face huge inflation at the same time as an economic recession.

So, who's for a general election in the next 4-6 weeks? If I was a betting man, I'd put some money on it.

After all, those low prices before Christmas will have ended, VAT will rise, fuel will jump exponentially, growth will crumble and a lot more besides: just you watch. And all in the next 3 months.

Of course, in order to jump now, the Cabinet has to have some spine (As they already have Balls, although he's as spineless as the rest), something which they've clearly lacked in the past. So no guarantees, but if I was in charge and facing the abyss like Gordon Brown is, thats what I'd do: make the most of the situation at hand.

Sunday, 24 January 2010

There are many conspiracy theories that are made out of the most tenuous circumstantial links. They can be explained away with detailed scrutiny.

However, the Dr Kelly affair is another animal entirely. His convenient death, after briefing against the government and the subsequent whitewash of an enquiry which delved non too deeply into the circumstances around his demise appeared to show there was something more to it than met the eye..

What purpose will hiding the truth serve? Not only that, but hiding it for so long? One theory is that its to protect his children from hearing the gruesome details of his demise, but if my father had died in mysterious and controvertial circumstances, I'd want to know the truth, gruesome or not.
No, the signs point to there being something worth hiding. Something so big that it needs to be buried in 70 years of history.

As there is something to hide, what is it? It may not be exactly the conspiracy people think it is: there be other reasons than his criticism of the government, there may be more to his life than we presume rather than his controvertial death, but given the way the multitude of circumstantial evidence keeps on piling up one can't help but think there is a conspiracy.

Cookies

Just to make sure I comply with ever-expanding EU legislation, I'd just like to mention that this page uses cookies to track visitors, like every other page on the internet since the dawn of HTML and browsers.

I've no way of switching the things on and off and I've no way in Blogger to give you a choice. I'm not an internet guru. So lets just say if you're one of the 20-people-a-day that browse this site, Blogger collects the stats telling me you've been here and that by browsing this site you are happy about that.